It seems ridiculous to me to call Mises' regression reasoning a theorem. Theorem implies rigorous mathematical proof, and considering Mises' rejected mathematics as valid methodology for economics and created praxeology instead I think it's clear that said "theorem" has no backing in mathematics. It's a line of reasoning and pretty good for what it is, but it's no where near being a theorem.

Hello MAM,

Merriam-Webster defines "theorem" as "1) a formula, proposition, or statement in mathematics or logic deduced or to be deduced from other formulas or propositions." Or "2) an idea accepted or proposed as a demonstrable truth often as a part of a general theory."

To be fair to Mises I would think his Regression Theorem surely qualifies as a theorem based on these definitions. Just because theorems are used in mathematics doesn't mean they are based on mathematical formulas, they can be deduced from logical propositions. Deduction from logical propositions is the basis of most, if not all, of Mises' economics. But I think people who are using the regression theorem as some sort of proof that bitcoin can't be money are wrong for the following reasons:

1) Mises' Regression Theorem was proposed as an explanation of the way that money could have developed in the past. I don't think Mises was trying to say that money could never come into existence by any other method in the future.

2) Mises could have been wrong on this issue. Though I agree with most of Mises' economic theories I wouldn't accept everything he wrote as infallible.

So whether people want to believe it or not, bitcoin IS a medium of exchange. If you buy a pizza with it, you will get a real pizza, not a "virtual" one.